Abortion is another controversial, global issue that involves morality and righteousness of humanity. This dilemma specifically concerns whether humans should have the right to abort and whether euthanizing an unborn fetus is morally right. Additionally, abortion laws and abortion itself plays a very important role in politics. Between conservatives, liberals, moderates, republicans, democrats, and independents, there are varying beliefs, ranging from pro-life, pro-choice, and many degrees in between. Many candidates for political positions are chosen because of their views on abortion and the laws that govern it. Personally, I am more of on the pro-choice side of the spectrum because I see abortion as a human right. Given that, I do not believe
…show more content…
I agree with this analogy on the fact that it undermines the argument that zygotes (the initial form after conception) are human beings, which I disagree with. Of course though, at what stage an unborn child becomes a “human being” and obtains human rights and is completely subjective, especially taking in account various definitions of what human beings and human rights consist of from personal and social viewpoints. To say casual abortion as morally impermissible I can understand, but when it comes to unique instances such as rape, incest, disease/disorder, or if the mother’s life is in danger, I cannot really say that a claim for this is plausible. The “extreme view”, that abortion is additionally impermissible even to save the mother creates an unorthodox situation in which you either have the choice to save the baby or the mother. Considering the oppositions stance, Thomson writes “if mother and child have an equal right to life, shouldn’t we perhaps flip a coin? Or should we add to the mother’s right to life her right to decide what happens in and out of her body?” …show more content…
It’s plausible to say that the person who owns the house/body has say so on what happens, so clearly the mother is superior in the fact it’s her body and she essentially owns it. Some people like to demonize this complexity, and falsely insinuate that people who are pro-choice do not believe that everyone has the right to life. The author combats this belief by saying “I am not arguing that people do not have a right to life… I am arguing only that having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person’s body—even if one needs it for life itself” (Thomson 107). I agree with this premise because people think that a right to life automatically means everything must be done to prevent death regardless of others involvement, but that’s not the case simply because it’s someone else’s body. Additionally, another author, Warren, had slightly different views. Although sharing the belief that abortion is acceptable in certain cases such as rape, she expressed concern of how morally permissible an abortion of a pregnancy that is not due to rape or non-life threatening really
I agree with this analogy on the fact that it undermines the argument that zygotes (the initial form after conception) are human beings, which I disagree with. Of course though, at what stage an unborn child becomes a “human being” and obtains human rights and is completely subjective, especially taking in account various definitions of what human beings and human rights consist of from personal and social viewpoints. To say casual abortion as morally impermissible I can understand, but when it comes to unique instances such as rape, incest, disease/disorder, or if the mother’s life is in danger, I cannot really say that a claim for this is plausible. The “extreme view”, that abortion is additionally impermissible even to save the mother creates an unorthodox situation in which you either have the choice to save the baby or the mother. Considering the oppositions stance, Thomson writes “if mother and child have an equal right to life, shouldn’t we perhaps flip a coin? Or should we add to the mother’s right to life her right to decide what happens in and out of her body?” …show more content…
It’s plausible to say that the person who owns the house/body has say so on what happens, so clearly the mother is superior in the fact it’s her body and she essentially owns it. Some people like to demonize this complexity, and falsely insinuate that people who are pro-choice do not believe that everyone has the right to life. The author combats this belief by saying “I am not arguing that people do not have a right to life… I am arguing only that having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person’s body—even if one needs it for life itself” (Thomson 107). I agree with this premise because people think that a right to life automatically means everything must be done to prevent death regardless of others involvement, but that’s not the case simply because it’s someone else’s body. Additionally, another author, Warren, had slightly different views. Although sharing the belief that abortion is acceptable in certain cases such as rape, she expressed concern of how morally permissible an abortion of a pregnancy that is not due to rape or non-life threatening really